Why I Think Obama is the Best Candidate on Foreign Policy

Barack Obama is better equipped to handle the United States' foreign policy on the world stage than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. As an international human rights lawyer who has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, I understand better than most the security situation facing Americans and the world. Recently, I survived a large-scale attack by the Taliban on a hotel in Kabul, so my sense of urgency about national security and the safety of Americans abroad is based on a very real understanding of the dangers we face. I plan to return to Kabul shortly, and I know I will feel safer and more confident of success in Afghanistan if Barack Obama is in the White House.

In my time abroad, people have expressed to me that they doubt the United States' commitment to its own ideals and even the very existence of true democracy in the U.S. The misguided policies, arrogance and incompetence of the Bush administration have alienated our friends and inflamed our enemies. Americans working abroad can no longer rely on the good reputation of their country, and instead we are often called upon to explain or justify its actions. We need a leader who can revive American diplomacy, and with it, the reputation of the U.S. in the world.

I believe that Barack Obama is the candidate who can restore credibility to the United States in the international community. He, more than any other candidate, can prove that the U.S. is capable of making a serious change in its policies and leadership overseas in the wake of the disastrous blunders of the Bush administration. Unlike the presence of another Clinton in the White House, an Obama presidency will lead to a sense among needed allies that there is a new political order in the U.S. An Obama presidency will convince our allies that the American people recognize that new approaches are required to deal with the post 9/11 world, and that unilateralism and political arrogance breed hatred of this country and its citizens.

The claim that Barack Obama is inexperienced in foreign policy is a red herring. Having served for two years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has more on-the-job foreign policy experience than Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Ronald Regan did when they took office. And his experience came during the post 9/11 era. The experience Hillary Clinton touts from her White House years is from an outdated period in history, and her vote on the Iraq war demonstrates that her judgment in the current environment is not sound. She was wrong about what may prove to be one of the most key foreign policy decisions of our time, and for years, has been unable or unwilling to recognize her error and move forward. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama was right about the war, but has tried, as he said last night, to work with others to drive George Bush's bus out of the proverbial ditch and turn the focus back to Afghanistan. He had this clarity even when he was a state senator. By Hillary Clinton's own account, George Bush fooled her, but, given the same information, Obama came to a different conclusion and spoke out against the Iraq war at the time and has continued to focus on fighting those in Afghanistan who were responsible for the September 11th attacks.

Barack Obama has the ability to deal both with American's allies and its enemies. Right now, in Afghanistan and around the world, the U.S. needs the support of its friends. Not only does Obama have the skills necessary to reach out to those we have alienated, he has expressed a willingness to do so. His comments about Pakistan, a key U.S. ally, in particular demonstrate that he is focused on cultivating relationships with moderate factions within the country without surrendering to any one group or relying on one person. He avoids the alienating strong-arm "you're with us or against us" rhetoric of the Bush administration. Instead, when discussing international security, he immediately looks to international coalitions and partnerships, including NATO, and recognizes the importance of engaging with the international community to achieve American interests. He understands what the war in Iraq has meant for the U.S. on the world stage, and the damaging effect it has had on the centrally important U.S. campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama clearly is aware that the U.S. needs to make smart choices about its policies in the Islamic world in order to ensure our national security and to work with our allies to do so.

Given his early opposition to the Iraq war and focus on the battle against extremism in Afghanistan, his values, good judgment and intelligence are clear. And throughout this primary season, he has demonstrated that he has the ability to convince others and make his visions a reality. Hillary Clinton does not understand that his poetic rhetoric is used in the service of getting people to work together toward real accomplishment. Witness the success of his campaign in organizing victory after victory (while her campaign has been losing more supporters the longer it continues) against one of the most formidable political machines in Democratic Party history.

I believe that Obama's conduct of his campaign reveals the way in which he would conduct foreign (and domestic) policy. He knows how to defuse arguments and focus on shared values while relentlessly pursing his ultimate goal. He knows when to make his point and when to stand above the fray. He is able to disagree in a principled way, and accept and incorporate an argument made by someone else if it is proven to be well-reasoned. The respectful way he treats his political opponents is a model of how he will treat the rest of the world. This is exactly the sort of political skill and diplomacy that America needs to employ when conducting international relations. The world will welcome a more open United States, dedicated to advancing its own interests without riding roughshod over other countries.

Finally, as someone who works to establish respect for human rights and democracy in a post-conflict environment, I think that Obama will be an example for the world of the fruits of a true democratic process -- something in which many people in struggling parts of the world no longer believe. Whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, most people's experience with politics is that it is run by dictators, family dynasties or clans. So, in a world where the fate of Pakistan, a nuclear power which created the Taliban, is being fought over by a military dictator and the family of a powerful slain former leader, it frightens me to hear Hillary Clinton say things like "It did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush." To much of the world, a Hillary Clinton presidency will be no surprise, but will look like their own national clan-driven politics. An Obama presidency, on the other hand, will be proof to the world that the democratic process can allow leaders who have vision and talent to come to the helm, despite a lack of family connections and in the face of potential racial or ethnic discrimination. It will show the world that the U.S. is truly a great democracy where the people control the government.

I believe that an Obama presidency will bring about a new respect for the U.S. around the world. President Obama will renew a sense of partnership with our allies, admit our mistakes in Iraq, and focus on rooting out terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He will bring to American diplomacy a fresh, intelligent perspective on the causes and effects of extremism and a more effective approach to combating terrorism. If Obama is elected, I will be safer, more likely to be shown respect as an American and more likely to succeed in democracy-building in Afghanistan. In my mind, that makes Barack Obama the strongest candidate for president in the realm of international affairs.

Comments

[MDTERP]

Those people are correct in doubting that America is a "true democracy." It is a republic, how else for Gore to have won the popular vote and not the job (let's leave the Supremes out of it). And Obama just admitted that he has done nothing in his time on the foreign relations committee, too busy trying to grab the golden ring to try to participate in solving the major problems confronting our country. Just what we need at this time, a foreign affairs neophyte. And please don't say someone's experience is from an outdated period in history. Ten years ago? It is the cummulative experience that counts, being able to put it all together in an ever changing perspective. You think history started over at 9/11? I'm tired of the present idiot who had no foreign policy experience and no historical perspective. Oh and getting attacked in a hotel does not give you more knwoledge of the threats in the world. But certainly more empathy with those who continue to suffer because Americans refuse to make informed choices on their elected officials.

[KiwisCanFly]

Well said Lisa Gans. Thank you for your thoughtful and well considered opinion. I agree.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Obama is a one trick pony when it comes to foreign policy experience. It's like asking Rudy Giuliani a question, the answer is always 9/11. Ask Obama about foreign policy, the answer is alwasy 'I was against the war from the beginning'. It's a big world out there. There are more issues than that. He only has two other foreign policy credentials. He chairs a senate sub-committee on foreign relations. But, actually he has been so busy running for president, he's never held a meeting of that sub-committee. Why did he accept the chairmanship if he knew he didn't have the time to do the job? A little resume padding? His third policy position is his committment to hold presidential level mtgs his first year with no preconditions with the worst world leaders. I know Bush has not been willing to talk with our enemies at any level of govt. But, the answer to that isn't to jump right up to the top and hold presidential mtgs. The answer is what Clinton proposes which is to have full diplomatic meetings with these other govts prior to getting to the presidential level.
So, when it comes down to it, Obama's entire relevant foreign policy experience is he was opposed to the war from the beginning.

[Fabienne]

Though there are many things to be said in denial of what you said above, I'll give just one example: Obama has said he will engage Raoul Castro in talks and Senator Clinton has said she will not do so unless he signals he is ready to change. So she will continue the embargo which has been so effective for the past 40 years or more? Just as her husbands' sanctions on Iraq (and repeated bombings), which killed many thousands of people, were effective? If one refuses to talk to anyone else unless the other accedes to one's view of things, there is very little hope of accomplishing anything except through bullying and violence, which, in the long run, diminishes and destroys the one engaging in it.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Cliton did not say she would refuse to talk with Cuba. She said she woiuld not have a face to face presidential metting with Castro until there are signs of a willingness to change. She has said repeatedly that her administration (at levels below th president) will engage with our enemies where the Bush administration has not been willing to do so.

The difference here is that Obama has GUARANTEED to meet personally with these world leaders in his first year with no preconditions. Clinton has said that her administration will negotiate with them at lower levels but will not guarantee a presidential level meeting. She is advocation a middle ground between the isolationist views of Bush and the policy put forth by Obama.

[raptor]

"but, given the same information, Obama came to a different conclusion" Proof that was given the same information?

[kingshmoopy]

Clinton did not bother to read the information she was given. However, many thoughtful Senators did bother and, after having done so, voted against the war.

[raptor]

Biden read and voted yes. Dodd didn't read it and voted yes. Kerry waffled, but no he didn't read it and voted yes. For more details, see "Few senators read Iraq NIE report ":
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html
and
James Boyce's blog "The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94" at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/the-iraq-war-vote-was-69_b_50742.html

This like taking candy from a baby.

[BUSHsurvivor]

I can confirm that Foreign Policy is so important to Barack, that he not once held a meeting for his subcommittee that he chairs which could have helped in determining said foreign policy!

[Macready]

Bravo Lisa . .. excellent blog and so true, I live abroad and everyone I have spoken to (Europeans mainly but some Americans) thinks Obama is the best candidate . . hillary's approach to foreign policy is not only old but dangerous . . . it is too entrenched in the "same old same old" that has proven not to work . .. and is in many respects a continuation of bush policies she voted for . . . if America is to begin to repair its international prestige Obama is the only candidate.

[raptor]

And in Australia, McCain gets the nod, Obama gets the news, and Clinton gets ignored.

[AnotherTry]

What will Obama do as president about a new 9/11 investigation?

What will Obama do about prosecuting war criminals?

Answer to both: Nothing. He is just a political puppet. Who is pulling his strings? With the media we have today, we will probably learn too late.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

I live abroad, and I can confirm that, while either Democrat will improve the situation for ex-patriates and American tourists abroad, Obama would better our lot by an order of magnitude more than Clinton.

[BNAUGHTY]

As, do I and I strongly second that motion. Here Here!!! Oh, and Lisa... thanks for the great post, extremely well reasoned/written. cheers

[raptor]

" Obama would better our lot by an order of magnitude more than Clinton" because....

[kingshmoopy]

. . . because of all the reasons that were listed in the above blog.

[acrobat99]

Barackanot,
Barack Obama was never a practicing muslim. His mother was an anthropologist and an athiest, and he barely knew his father who left him when he was 2. He had some exposure to muslim culture when he lived in Indonesia for 4 ELEMENTARY school years, and I believe his stepfather in Indonesia was a muslim, (as Indonesians usually are), but the rumor that says he went to an extremist "wahabi" muslim school is wrong. CNN did an investigation on this, and found out that school he attended was a secular school.
He spent most of his childhood in Hawaii, however, and then his adult years in Chicago, New York, and Boston. Why are you so sure he doesn't love America, just because his background was a little unconventional? Does everyone have to have a cookie cutter "white" upbringing to be a true American? American culture has been greatly shaped by immigrants! In some ways, immigrants appreciate America even more deeply than natives, because they don't take the unique freedoms of the U.S. for granted. They know how great America is and how much more opportunity it offers, since they have lived in much worse places.
Barack Obama taught constitutional law for a few years. He has studied the American constitution extensively. That is a way more important form of "patriotism" then wearing flag lapel pins, or whatever other nonsense that gets blown out of proportion.
I'm not sure where you're getting the other stuff you're saying from, although judging from what else you've said, you don't exactly seem like the most reliable source of information.
A lot of these comments show to me how scared and suspicious people get of others simply because they are different.

[Serfie]

I have probably spent a total of 10 years outside the US. I am in the my mid 30's. I can speak four languages, not fluently, but good enough to live in those respective countries without speaking English.


And yes, I have been to the Middle East, Muslim Southeast Asia and North Africa.


This notion that Barack Obama is the best candidate on foreign policy is ludicrous.


Out of all the candidates, he is the least experienced.


From the foreign press I have read, it seems many are wary of Obama for the same reasons many in the US are wary of Obama: He is an empty suit who can only give a good speech.


Just like Ronald Reagan.


Foreigners hated Reagan, except for Maggie Thatcher and Latin American autocrats.


At least Ronald Reagan had an ideology. Who knows what Barack Obama believe in?


The truth is that most foreigners find US political theater disgusting, because it lacks substance. I can't really argue with that assessment, because they are right. Barack Obama sings out soaring rhetoric and his sheeple start worshiping at the altar of Barack.


Obama runs around giving flowery speeches about "hope and change." Trust me when I say that kind of politicking makes foreigners want to puke. They mock and ridicule us because of it. And it scares them a bit. After all, they know their history.


Also, if Obama starts a trade policy that rolls back WTO and NAFTA and all the other free trade agreements, he will become the most despised US president ever, because the US has been giving foreign countries a free ride on trade for a long time.


Let us be frank: Obama is totally untested and because the US media has given him a free ride and his followers are ignorant sheep, we really don't know what Obama will do in case of another terrorist attack, Mullahs taking over in Pakistan, Taliban taking over in Afganistan, a Serbia in the midst in a civil war, the Israel-Palestine conflict, Mexican immigration, a resurgent hostile Russia, and a China exercising its historical influence in SE Asia.


I wonder when his dopey followers and the worthless US media will start asking him about these things.

[nomobull]

all those languages and the best you can do is repeat sound bites.

[juangault]

Congratulations on all your travels abroad, but has it left any time to be a parent? This election is about the future, and the future belongs to children. Hillary is a role model for many "successful" independent women who have lived full and fun lives. My sister is one. She of course loves Hillary. It's tough to see her now in her 50's, without children, stopping by once in a while to visit us at our little two story house on a cul-de-sac. It does alleviate a little of her angst to hug my sons, before she gets back to her furiously busy, empty suit life.

[Macready]

hillary a role model for young women??? . . .for being a bush follower and not having the courage to stand up and say she voted for the war because she is a hawk; for riding on her husband's coattails to become prez and for looking the other way during bill's numerous affairs . . . duh . . . your sister should pick a better role model ...

[wmfor]

I think your point about the future belonging to the children (quite valid) got lost somewhere in your polemic about motherhood being the only possible fullfilment for a woman.

How about a man? Or can men be fulfilled by their empty-suit careers?

Do you think Chelsea has alleviated a little of Hillary's angst?

[Fabienne]

Isn't it better to begin without an ideology? Example: THe Bush/Cheney administration, which is rife with ideology. Ideology closes the mind, and does not allow one to be flexible.

[winkin]

Serfie -
It is obvious from this and all your previous posts that you really have no use for Obama whatsoever. Your obsession against him is amazing.

It is true that Obama has not been involved in many international negotiations.
But he does have some things that you as a world traveler should appreciate:

(a) He's multicultural. Kansas mother, Kenya father. Hard to beat. To compare him to Bush - as you did in a prior post - is ludicrous. Bush knows Texas, if that much.
(b) He's lived in many different places, incl. Hawaii, Indonesia, and multiple US cities. Why do you think almost all CEO's of multinationals have at some stage in their career been posted overseas?
(c) He's biracial. You're unrealistic if you don't consider that an extra advantage. If only to show the world that we in the USA have turned an important page in history.

As his campaign has shown, he knows how to pick his advisors, and knows how to delegate. That's what a CEO needs to do.
And he will bring the "you're either with us or against us" era to an end.
Case in point: Eastern Europe did not give up communism thanks to unproductive embargoes like we have on Cuba. Let Obama visit Cuba and see how he can help turn the page there as well. Unlike Clinton who prefers to pander to the Cuban audience/vote in Miami, and leave things unchanged.

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

There should be little doubt that a new start in foreign relations will be a real opportunity for better outcomes. Having the Clintons back in power reeks of the dynasties (clans as you call them), that are never compatible with good government. I think of the shifting of rule between the Bush and Clinton families and it reminds me of the Wars of The Roses in England. Nothing came of it but blood.

Regarding Senator Clinton's vote to give George W. Bush authority to move towards war, why was she fooled into voting for it, when I a humble citizen on the periphery, saw it as a pack of lies from the beginning? Where was her b.s. sniffer? Frankly, I think her vote was calculated and weak.

[acrobat99]

LDW, please do some more research into what you are saying before you just say everything as if they were facts. You sound like you have just been accepting what the Clinton campaign has said without truly investigating it. They will lie and put a lot of spin into what they said, as politicians often do, although the Clintons seem to have taken this to an art. Have some more responsibility and don't spread misinformation. You owe it to yourself and the country. We should not be supporting our candidate just for the sake of supporting that candidate - but we should really decide who the best candidate for leading this country at this point in time would be, by keeping an open mind and learning as much from all sides as we can, and doing as much deep research as we possibly can, (knowing that there is a whole lot of spin and misleading claims in politics). We shouldn't be so quick to rush to judgement about a candidate unless there really is ample evidence.

I don't understand why some of you are so quick to denounce this article as "Oh, she's just an Obamabot, obviously what she says has no merit whatsoever, after all I am much more of an expert on foreign affairs than an international civil rights lawyer." I think its an understatement to say that she is probably much more of an expert on this than we are.

Anyways, LDW you are wrong about your claim that Obama conveniently removed his anti Iraq war speech on his website when the war was "popular", and then put it back on when antiwar sentiment was high. This is something that Clinton claimed. The site archive.org's wayback machine allows you to see past snapshots in time of webpages, going back to 1996. Using this tool, you will see that senator Obama's anti iraq-war speech remained on front of his webpage for the entire year after Obama gave his speech! So this claim that the Clinton camp made is actually a complete lie.

[Mormondude]

"Having served for two years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has more on-the-job foreign policy experience than Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Ronald Regan did when they took office."

As Clinton correctly pointed out, he has been absent from the committee for the lion's share of that time, and as has done nothing whatsoever in his chairmanship of a subcommittee to increase our understanding of Afghanistan or any other country.

And why should the focus be Afghanistan? NATO is running things there. Their government is relatively stable. Their nation is relatively secure.

Iraq is the biggest threat today and in the future. It's the biggest threat for descending into chaos. It's the biggest threat for genocide. It's the biggest threat for extremists filling a power vacuum.

And yet, the entire time that Obama is saying that we MUST assist the Afghanis in their fledgling Democracy, he tells us that we MUST abandon the Iraqis in theirs.

And personally, I don't think invading Iraq, destroying the country, and then abandoning it to genocide and Jihadist is going to bolster our reputation around the world. More likely we'll be like the Germany of the last 50 years, where people are STILL TO THIS DAY ashamed of their country and ashamed and suspicious of their military.

We broke Iraq. In hindsight it was a mistake. And precisely BECAUSE it was a mistake we now have a far greater responsibilty to fix it as best we can than we do in Afghanistan.

[BARRISTER]

You have "a responsibility" to get to fuck out of Iraq pronto!!

But, no!! OIL!!!

[57andfemale]

As usual, not paying attention to facts: He served on the foreign relations committee and showed up plenty. CLinton's claim was about a subcommittee he chairs. And I'll even agree that he should do more with his subcommittee.

That being said, Hillary, while in Washington, did not think it important enough to vote against telecom immunity, she didn't show up to vote against the bankruptcy bill (although I have heard Bill was in the hospital, but I don't know if that's accurate), and she is surrounded by foreign policy advisors who believe in the premise of the Iraq war, just don't like the way it was handled. And that kind of foreign policy "experience" we don't need.

[Fabienne]

Afghanistan's government is "relatively stable"? "Their nation is relatively secure." What are you reading?

[kingfishstew]

One question. Why is everyone so sure that Sunnis are going to clobber the Shia and establish Al-Queda in Iraq as a nation when we pull out. The more realistic outcome is a Shia clobbering of Sunni, and an Iraq that...while probably friendly to Iran, isn't allied with the Sunni Al-Queda.

Israel won't like it, but there's ways to neutralize the danger from expanding Shia power to Israel. Namely, the fact that she might actually become that much friendlier and be that much more 'accepted' by her new scared Sunni neighbors.

[Susan1968]

OBAMA RAISED FUNDS FOR ISLAMIC CAUSES:
Obama's 1999 fundraising for the Palestinian Deheisha camp raised the eyebrows of one senior Israeli security official who was contacted yesterday for comment on the issue. The official, who was not aware of Obama's fundraising, noted Deheisha, which is located near the city of Bethlehem, had a "very active" Palestinian terror apparatus in 1999, carrying out scores of deadly shootings against Israeli civilians that year.

Abunimah previously described meeting with Obama at a fundraiser at the home of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, reportedly a former PLO activist.
According to quotes obtained by Gulf News, Abunimah recalled a 2004 meeting in a Chicago neighborhood while Obama was running for his Senate seat.

Abunimah quoted Obama telling him "warmly" he was sorry that "I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race."

"I'm hoping when things calm down, I can be more up front," Abunimah reportedly quoted the senator as saying.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57341

[BrooklynLager]

Can't you go out and volunteer for the McCain campaign and leave us alone?

[57andfemale]

And the right wing talking points spread like the flu......

Because they have always been so truthful.

[kingfishstew]

worldnetdaily. Yes, a real credible source with liberals I might add.

[AndriaSmith]

Dear Lisa, Nice article. I enjoyed reading what you had to say. I just wanted to say one thing though about something you said regarding Hillary. Hillary Clinton is a part of history, and no one can take that away from her. She isn't a thing of the past, and I mean that in a different way than you I think. My feeling is people need to take responsibility for their own condition. No one can MAKE you feel safe. Challenging your own fear is something that requires personal courage and inner strength. I agree that Obama is a decent man with very nice gestures, and has a serious concern for this country, but he is not familiar with extemism in my opinion, because he's never gone to extremes. I am just curious, if you had to choose between two pilots to take you over the Pacific Ocean, would you chose Amelia Earhart or me, someone who has never flown a plane?

[Promise]

Amelia Earhart went down!

[57andfemale]

Bill CLinton had no foreign policy experience before being elected president. None.

If Obama was a 13 year old kid who had flunked history and civics class, your stupid analogy might hold. But someone of his intelligence, clarity of vision of the big picture, legislative and community organizing experience, is not some stupid kid, for God's sake.

And what is Hillary's actual experience? Has she ever been held accountable for all the things she takes credit for? How in the world does being First Lady make you competent to be president? And where are her papers that might document what she did all those years.

So it's we're going to play stupid analogies: Laura Bush should run for president.

In Tuesday's debate, she actually took credit for diplomatic negotiations as First Lady, and no one has seen how ludicrous that sounds.

Face it: you're voting for Bill Clinton. It's dynastic, it's un-American to have to families dominate for what could be 36 years.

Hillary isn't just about history, she is totally of the past that doesn't work. Her foreign policy proposals are are at best Bush-lite. She does not understand the depth of work we have to do to restore America in the eyes of the world. She still will "demand" instead of working with people. She's already in bunker mentality, surrounded by sycophants who don't even keep her informed of the finances of her campaign. She is not competent to be president.

[kingfishstew]

Seriously. I've very disturbed by this love of the dual monarchy Americans seem to have. Why not just marry Chelsea off to Obama (force him to divorce his wife) Than the Clintons could stay in power forver, muhuhahahuau, and America would be perfect, because it'd be dominated by that one family forever.

And the Bush could marry his daughters off to some hispanic republican. And everyone who cares more about symbolism than the fact that we're trying to break the Dual monarchy here would be happy forever. Just keep marrying the first into your family.

Wow, where's Brutus when you need him?